Debate Ignores Gamers; Video Game Critic Romney Declines to Condemn Torture Practice

November 29, 2007 -
Like many GamePolitics readers, I was disappointed that none of the videos submitted by gamers made the final cut for last night's CNN/YouTube Republican debate.

To be fair, however, there are many other crucial issues such as Iraq, abortion, gun control, the economy and the influence of religion on politics. Host Anderson Cooper focused on these.

One telling moment for me, however, came when Mitt Romney could not bring himself to condemn the practice of waterboarding. Here's a guy who decries violent video games as part the "cultural cesspool" in which today's children are supposedly swimming but can't even find it within himself to condemn this acknowledged form of torture?

Sen. John McCain - who was a torture victim during his years of captivity by the North Vietnamese - absolutely ripped Romney on the issue and he was right to do so.

For Romney, the take-away is that virtual violence is a horror, but real-life torture is okay.

Governor, your hypocrisy is showing...

Here's the video of McCain-Romney exchange. Full text version after the jump.

UPDATE: Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin has weighed in on the debate: 
I was disappointed not to see a gamer question in much the same way that I was disheartened not to hear many other secondary, but important, questions posed.

The ECA member I ran into at PAX... put it into context well in that anyone watching a two hour debate on CNN very likely already knows where the candidates stand on the major issues, and it's certainly easy enough to find out otherwise.

What we don't know is where - or even "if" - they stand on the secondary matters. We won't let up however. Consumer rights are topically important and our demographic can and will be motivated to vote, but only if those politicians are willing to make the effort to speak to issues that are important to us.

Andrew Jones: Hello, gentlemen. I'm Andrew, and I'm a college student from Seattle, Washington. Recently, Senator McCain has come out strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation.

My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?

Cooper: Governor Romney?

Romney: Well, he certainly is an expert and I certainly would want to get his counsel on a matter of this nature, but I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.

I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form.

Cooper: Is waterboarding torture?

Romney: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use. And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.

And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country. And, by the way, I want to make sure these folks are kept at Guantanamo. I don't want the people that are carrying out attacks on this country to be brought into our jail system and be given legal representation in this country. I want to make sure that what happened ...


... to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed happens to other people who are terrorists. He was captured. He was the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy. And he turned to his captors and he said, "I'll see you in New York with my lawyers." I presume ACLU lawyers.


Well, that's not what happened. He went to Guantanamo and he met G.I.s and CIA interrogators. And that's just exactly how it ought to be.


Cooper: Senator McCain?


(Unknown): There were reports Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.

McCain: Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is.

Romney: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.

McCain: Then I am astonished that you would think such a -- such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our -- who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention. It's in violation of existing law...


And, governor, let me tell you, if we're going to get the high ground in this world and we're going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We're not going to torture people.

We're not going to do what Pol Pot did. We're not going to do what's being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.

Cooper: Governor Romney, 30 seconds to respond.


Romney: Senator McCain, I appreciate your strong response, and you have the credentials upon which to make that response. I did not say and I do not say that I'm in favor of torture.

I am not. I'm not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we're able to do and what things we're not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.

I get that advice by talking to former generals in our military...

Cooper: Time.

Romney: ... and I don't believe it's appropriate for me, as a presidential candidate, to lay out all the issues one by one...

Cooper: Time.

Romney: ... get questioned one by one: Is this torture, is that torture?

Cooper: Senator McCain...

Romney: And so, that's something which I'm going to take your and other people's counsel on.

Cooper: Senator McCain, 30 seconds to respond.

McCain: Well, then you would have to advocate that we withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, which were for the treatment of people who were held prisoners, whether they be illegal combatants or regular prisoners of war. Because it's clear the definition of torture. It's in violation of laws we have passed.

And again, I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not "24" and Jack Bauer.

Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.

My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.




"Real torture is much more gruesome. It’s what the terrorists do to our people when they get their hands on em."

this is excuse is not acceptable as a reason to engage in any forms of torture.

saying the other guys are worse doesn't mean we can sink to their level.

nah jacks to busy with his disbarment case beside I dare him to sue me. But then he would need his license.

Comparing a "torture" technique that we should be able to use against our enemies to save our compatriots lives, soldiers lives, civilians, just regular people, with videogame playing? I'm all for videogames, and free speech, but comparing something that could save lives, with a form of entertainment is pretty weak.

That doesn't even make any sense, and your bias is showing GP. Stick to videogames and keep the left-wing politics out of it, videogame legislation is not a clean cut partisan issue.

@ WholefnShow

I’m not gonna lie to you, you’ve made my head explode. I humbly ask you to find anything ambiguous about the issues on this page:

Sure it is listed on his website. All candidates stances are on their websites. But I have never seen him take a firm stance on any issue in public. He mostly flounders away his time.

Any one can write something hand it to the publisist and have her rewrite it into something intelligible, but it takes a different kind of person to discuss those issues intelligibly in person.


so a barren woman shouldn't be able to get married?
a man with a vasectomy should be forced to get a divorce because he cannot procreate for the state any longer?

we should not remove civil rights due to faulty logic, whether or not it comes from religion.

"Unfortunately, his refusal to use his faith to rally support caused him to lose to Jimmy Carter"

Who was, in turn, defeated by an Arab who supported the storming on an Embassy, which is, considered to be an act of agression.


Waterboarding isn't a clean-cut partisan issue either.

Dennis is entitled to his opinion, biased or not. If this article was in support of Romney & waterboarding, would you have complained?


Er, Jabr, Conejo was quoting the movie, which I thought was damn good, by the way.


@Ace Tsiehta

Waterboarding isn’t a clean-cut partisan issue either. Dennis is entitled to his opinion, biased or not. If this article was in support of Romney & waterboarding, would you have complained?

You mean in support of waterboarding Romney? I'd vote for that.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

Ok, I don't have the time to read through the responses right now, but there is a point I'd like to bring up to the supporters of waterboarding, especially John Server:

Where is the line?

If we assume we have the right to torture threats to the American people, then how do we classify what person is a threat?

I have no problem with the basic idea meting out retribution to bad people (terrorists, murderers, rapists, etc.). The problem here, though, is how can we be sure that these people are who we believe them to be. As others have said, things are rarely so back and white.

How do we cope with the fact that we may be torturing the wrong people? What if this ends up with an over zealous military commander torturing and murdering innocent people?

If a situation like that were to arise, the United States as a whole would be no better than maniacs like Pol Pot and Hitler.


Honestly that's why I'm a very strict Constitutionalist on top of everything else. Many of the issues that the feds are intruding upon are best left to the individual states to decide. That was the intention, unfortunately the only candidate to say anything along these lines is Fred Thompson and he was a supporter of the so called "fairness doctrine" so any vote for him is right out.

So if we have the right to waterboard people that we consider to be a threat does China, Japan, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Ukraine, Bolivia, Somalia, Rwanda, Spain, France, Argentina, Brazil, and etc have the right to waterboard people they consider a threat?

The person they could consider a threat could be an american citizen who has done nothing but accused of being a spy. Not much different than the sterotypes of all middle easterns being terrorist in america.

@ jkdjr25: I just googled fred thompson & 'fairness doctrine.' it looks like thompson is against it, not for it. maybe I'm missing something...

Whether it's torture, corporal punishment, capital punishment, "schoolyard fights", domestic violence, authority figures (such as police) using or not using various forms of physical force/violence, or any other REAL WORLD issue connected to violence, it is a very useful comparison/contrast when matching up against the FICTIONAL violence in various media formats and how an individual, organization, and/or government official treats each.

Frankly, I find it an odd argument to make that using such comparison/contrast isn't valid. There are some comparison/contrasts that are only partly vaild while others can be compared/contrasted to a greater degree. An example of partials would be the use of comparison/contrast of alcohol and tobacco to various media formats. While the products themselves are vastly different and have different effects, positive OR negative, on the users, the comparison/contrast of the AGE LIMITING laws can be valid arguments.

So, yes, comparing the arguments of REAL WORLD violence versus FICTIONAL violence is rather interesting and valid.

NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 NW2K Software Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as

So its Ok to waterboard people in real life?

But its not ok to waterboard people in video games?


Its entirely possible that I'm wrong on that one. I had heard that he had originally signed on to the bill during his time in the senate

Romney got pwned.

We can always look forward to this:

The Fairness Doctrine would effectively hamper one of Fred Thompson's largest potential support systems ie Talk Radio. It's not likely that he would be for it.

I would prefer that America had a President Obama, but if it doesn't go that way, then it damn well better be President McCain.

why won't anything psot for me?

Broken Scope Says:
November 29th, 2007 at 11:10 am

Oh god I had a horrible dream last night, somehow Romney won the republican nomination and Hillary the democrat.

This scares me more than any other. I do not want my first time to vote to go to either of these.

The only reason the term waterboarding even exists is because it's pretty hard to argue that "water torture" isn't torture.

I dislike Romney intensely. However I appreciate the reasoning behind his waterboarding answer (or lack thereof), even though he did a terrible job of explaining it.

If I were POTUS, I would not allow waterboarding to be done. But I wouldn't confirm or deny that it's being done either, so that it would be lurking in the back of terrorists' minds when they get caught. In fact, I'd probably have the CIA or whoever set up the scariest fake torture chamber ever seen since the Spanish Inquisition right by the incoming prisoner processing area. Iron maidens, racks, pool full of alligators, a stereo with the Brittney Spears discography, you name it. And all for the purpose of bluffing.

Psy-war is fun. :p

All this talk of torture techniques in political confirmations and debates strikes me as curious. Don't interpret what I'm about to say as an endorsement OR a condemnation of waterboarding, but what the heck are we supposed to use, harsh language??? Yeesh. I can't help but think the international criminal community probably sees detention by US authorities as a summer walk through the park. (filled with daisies.) Stay out of Guantanemo and you're golden. What do interrogators do anymore? "PLEASE tell us your secrets. We'll give you a cookie!" I'm inclined to think we should probably abide by the Geneva convention and leave it at that.

As to the larger issues of games in the debate, I'm not one bit surprised we never showed up. I don't know what Hal Halpin's trippin' on, but he needs to share with the rest of us. The ugly truth is the republicans are backpedaling like crazy right now, if only because of Bush. They CANNOT afford to upset the the stuffy moral conservatives, whom many consider to be their voting backbone. Last time I checked the "moral values" conservatives are generally thought to be the reason Bushie got his second term. That said: these guys are either in JT's camp, or they ban video games because they fear games will turn their children into mysterious shut-in's who never go outside of their own free will. (we'll call them the morlock children); Then there's the ever-popular, games-are-for-kids camp, who just automatically think video games are immature, and that adults who play them are social throwbacks.

The point is the GOP candidates can't afford to alienate these conservatives by discussing video games intelligently. Even if they wanted to.


Apparently, you haven't read the comments well enough. I'd say most of us here are against it.

Ok time to throw out the logical progression comparision here...

I used to be ok with the whole torturing the bad guys thing until I took the devil's advocate position out of curiousity to the other side of the argument.

Many here are condoning the use of torture for the greater good. The greater good being that a terrorist attack or simply many lives being lost in some hideous manner was thwarted due to information that was crucial to finding and stopping that group was revealed.

Heroic and ideal but not logically sound. This means you're trying to stop the enemy by using information they're providing you under duress. I don't know about you but I would not gamble hundreds, thousands, millions of lives on such information.

So now for the logical tie in. Let's stick with the torture but change the stance from saving lives to saving our video games as we know it. We take anti-gaming extremists and torture them to find out how they plan to undermine our gaming. What do you think you'd get after the torture? Would you believe what was said?

The end does not justify the means.

I don't care what others may call me for saying torture isn't right. That's because I care about getting information right because the source is more trustworthy.


It's a damn poor arguement really... i mean, the very fact that a regular married can choose not to have children throws that arguement right out. If the basis for preventing same sex marriage was the fact that they could not breed then it should be illegal for regular couples to get married if they do not plan on having children... really, choosing not to breed and not being able to breed are not very different. Not to mention that a same-sex couple always have the option of adopting children... frankly, why breed new children when we still got children without parents.


Y'know, i don't think waterboarding sounds scary enough to "lurk" in the backs of terrorists minds... grant it, i'd wager to guess that terrorist probably think our politicans and leaders are all completly lying whenever they say we are againt torture and think we use the most horrible technics known to man. Afterall, they believe americans to be evil white devils and all that other shit; what kind of evil white devil would NOT use torture?... So the idea that they will be tortured probably lurks in the backs of their minds no matter what we say.


Your core political and social values are founded on a form of ambigious, cruel, and metaphysically absurd assumptions about the natural world. Such an obscene level of superstition is your right to believe in, but your superstition -- and that of other evangelicals -- does not obligate anyone else to believe such trash; NOR does it justify ANY POLICY that is justified by moral norms derived from superstitious hate.

"1. 1. I am an evangelical Christian, as Huckabee is. I also believe life begins at conception. This does not make me superstitious or anti-woman."

By analytic definition, you and Huckabee are guilty of superstition in the sense that you wish to stip away the rights of other free and autonomous beings in this country. Your absurd moral stance on the issue of abortion, derived from the 100Xth edition of 3,000 year old text that glorifies a genodical, child killing, monster, generates NO ARGUMENT that can justify the oppresion and assault you wish to commit on the rights of women in this nation. Pro-Life? Fine. That is YOUR CHOICE, and remains SELF-OBLIGATING. Keep your superstitious hate to yourself and leave the rights of women alone.

"2. I also believe in Biblical Creation. This does not make me anti-science, nor does it make it me an idiot."

You do not believe in evolution at the expense of Biblical Creation(a theory derived from a false and antiquated source that lacks even the most basic forms of emperical evidence). I could understand how you could be Pro-Science if you rejected evolution on the grounds of emperical skepticsm, lack of evidence, or evidential indifference. But, the fact you believe in a collection of fairy tales that suggest that an elaborate GEO-CENTRIC universe was created in a minute split second destroys ANY "pro-science" claim you might want to make. Idiot? Well, most of us would be likly to posit such a judgment on a man ran down the street and thought the universe was shitted from the anus of an inner-dimensional space worm and provided no evidence for his belief... sadly enough, your own beliefs have just about as much evidence (if not less, do to contradictions).

"3. I, again like Huckabee, don’t believe in same sex marriage. Whether or not the Federal Government needs to get involved is another matter entirely."

Why? Because the same book that instructs you to murder pagans, rape enemies of Israel, plunder cities, stone innocent women, cower before a war God, enslave yourself to escape eternal torture, and spread superstitious hate about the world tells you that homosexuals are creatures of sin? Do not believe this is an aspect of your ambigious religion? Shall I cite the Bible for you? I'm sorry, but this argument is not sufficent enough to dislodge a homosexual couple's right to happiness and equal protection under the law. Again, keep your superstitious hate to yourself.

"4. I also support capital punishment. If nothing else it deters that one person from ever hurting anyone ever again."

Mmmmm... conservative logic. Pro-Life but Pro-Death penality at the same time. I take it that you know that virtually every major branch of Christianity opposes the death penality? Ressentiment has no greater example! NO metaphysical or emperically valid link has EVER been proven between the death penalty and deterence. In fact, murder rates are lowest in areas without the death penalty; especially on an international scale. I know that conservatives love cowering in fear before things -- be it before God, imagined threats, or anything that bursts their little consumeristic bubble -- but please do not suggest that solitary confinement in a max. security prison could not prevent someone from killing again. On top of this, the price of executing someone is just about equal to life in prison. Furthermore, do you really want death threats to be the ONLY reason why someone does not murder another? Death penalty supporters are left with one thing to support their barbaric fasination with a practice that virtually no other democracies practice: lusting in the fumes of retributive justice. Yes, my evangelical friend, breath in the true values that your religion breeds.

@ John Server

If you are NOT against waterboarding (AKA TORTURE) you are either:

1. A shiftless cowardly idiot who is too scared to fight terrorism in a honorable and decent way. Stand up for the values you claim to champion. Do not cower behind artifical threats propagated by perverse politicans and become the very monsters you claim to hate. Our stance of torture helps cement our position as a moral authority in the arena of international ethics. So many conservatives cower in fear when it comes time to actually sacrifice something for their nation; be it by higher tax rates, helping your fellow citizens, protecting our nation's enviroment, or fighting REAL terrorism in a morally consistent way.

2. A relic of what Nietzche described as the process of self-contradictory ressentiment. Firstly, you claim to support decency and human rights, but only when those rights are politically convient. Secondly, you true values actually LOVE concepts like torture and inflicting pain on other human beings. Pick your values and remain consistent. Do you oppose torture, or do you take the cowardly route and only approve of it when your own hide is on the line? Pick between ethical honor or ethical cowardice. You can't have both.

If it means saving American lives, then I'm for torture. However, it should be used as a last resort ONLY.

@ illspirit: the problem with allowing the assumption we torture to persist is that it will make it much more likely for other people to use torture on us.

if we were at war with country X (e.g. China), and they assume we aren't going by the Geneva Convention in regard to torture, they will see no reason to stand by rules the US isn't following.
if we let this stand, then our service members taken POW as well as civilians kidnapped, should just expect to be tortured.

ah yes, that's the Pandralisk we know and love. might even have a point if it wasn't buried in vitriolic hate and religion bashing.

Hey, I just scored on my Pandralisk bingo card!

Normally I'd be above responding to his absolute idiocy but this stood out to me.

"stone innocent women"

Oh wait, didn't Jesus STOP a group of religious people in His day of stoning a woman by saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?" I'm pretty sure I remember that being in there somewhere.

As far as the "It's okay to torture because it's to protect the American people!" I would like anyone who says that to watch a little series called Death Note. The main character starts out with a plan to kill all the criminals in the world, and once they're all dead, everyone will be happy and loving and he will be cherished by everyone and chosen to rule this new world!

Except he gets so caught up in his agenda that he becomes exactly like the criminals he's murdering. One can never bring about good by doing evil, and torturing anyone, even terrorists, will never protect this country but only harm it further.

I will bash religion when it promotes values that encourage murder, racism, homophobia, slavery, inconsistency, hate, torture, death threats, and superstition.

I would be fine with Christians if they did two things:

1. Jesus was actually a wonderful person who preached loved and tolerance. He informed others that they had an obligation to help their fellow people and practice many morally upstanding values. The terrific character of Jesus is destroyed by the angry, hateful, and insane war God depicted in the Old Testament. "God" amounts to little more than a child killing, genocidal, racist, homophobe, torturous, and morally perverted bully. I would be far more likly to embrace Christians if Jesus had rejected the entire OT, OR modern Christians rejected it. As it stands, Christianity has little -- if any -- validity.

As it stands, the perverse actions of their immoral God contradict their moral ethical systems [and the values of Jesus]. To claim that one can somehow "pick through" a supposedly infalliable source that grants their beliefs validity and discard text at their whim represents a grave epistomogical error. It is even worse when the text self-contradicts itself in so many blatant and obvious ways.

2. Religious conservatives must practice consistent values. They must stop their attack on the rights of Americans and embrace the true values of Christ.


Ah how cute. You actually think you can proke me with that little diatribe. Dude I faced way better than you and always came out with my faith intact. The fact that you can lob your spurious accusations against someone you don't even know only goes to show your own bigotry.

heh. Though its nice to know I still have the touch. Thanks for that. :)

Oh. Just for your own edification there are numerous reasons that I believe in the things that I do. However, I talk about those on my own blog. I've no desire to waste Dennis's time nor bandwith talking about things that are that far off topic most of the time.

Anyway. Yeah I'll agree that waterboarding is torture and immoral. If anyone can speak on that issue with any degree of credibility its McCain.

Calling God a murderer is much the same as calling all police officers who have had to use their weapon on the job murders as well. If taken out of context, yeah police officers are murderers.

@ Skylar

"Is torturing known terrorists in order to gain information that could save the lives of my countrymen and women bad? I don’t think so."

Perhaps you should take into consideration that torture is an extremely ineffective means of obtaining information. Torture in most cases simply results in false confessions, which lead to more time and money being wasted pursuing false leads. Torture is not only inhumane, it simply doesn't work effectively.

Also, do you want the type of person who's capable of committing these actions against people as a free citizen in your country - much less one that's supposed to be protecting people? People are people, be they friend or foe, and how we treat one another matters.

And before anyone says anything, conflicts such as battles are different. In a battle, you are acting defensively. You are protecting yourself. When you are torturing someone, you are not. You're simply proving your capacity for inflicting cruelty upon others.

Does anyone else get a chuckle when Pandralisk mentions two of the reasons he despises Christianity is hate and racism? Big fucking boatloads of hypocrisy there. Those who have no morals shouldn't discuss them.

Guys, can we just accept Pandralisk as a far-left version of Jack Thompson and commence with ignoring the hatemonger?


True. Morality amounts to little more than what you make of it for yourself, and your obligation to respect the freedom of a person up until that person causes immediate harm or takes away the freedom of another.

Superstitious hate that self-contradicts itself is hardly morally attractive, or plausible, let alone a universal maxim.

Moral contradictions intrinsic (and EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE BIBLE) within Christianity breed hate (contemporary and historical) towards a wide range of ethinic groups, sexual preferences, moral systems, non-believers. Christians are not content with keeping their religion to themselves. The religion, as CLEARLY STATED IN THE BIBLE and ENFORCED BY HUNDREDS OF THOUNANDS OF CHRISTIANS, enforce their perverse moral norms, as we see whenever Christian advocacy groups hide under the label of the "family" to assault games intended for adult audience, by taking away the freedom of others: be it the freedom to marry one another freely, practice forms of consentual sexuality and violence, express oneself artistically, and control the function of one's body (to name a few).

Christianity has been wed with political forces since the birth of this nation. Christianity lies at the heart of most attacks against the rights of other people and the freedom to live life without harming others. It's not off-topic in this case, and 99% of the cases when I bring it up.

I second Phantom's post.

Dennis has already expressed his concern towards Pandralsik a couple of times before, and just like ol' Jackie before him, he ignores it and continues his completely off-topic rants.

I do not see how people call me a "hate monger" when I simply posit values on a diety that are CLEARLY STATED IN THE BIBLE and encourage us to respect the rights of one another.

Nor do I see how the analogy with JT is accurate when I am PERFECTLY WILLING to allow Christians to worship in peace; provided that they do not force their superstition into law or assault the freedom of others.

Again, I am so sorry if your sheltered and absurd understanding of "God" has been defiled obscene values that are in the bible. The genocidal, child killing, racist, and homophobic nature of "God" speaks for itself.

Dennis has asked you not to go off on these tirades when they have nothing to do with the story.

All you're doing is being hateful yourself.


No, I'm tired of watching people deflame my character because they are so biased and sheltered in their beliefs that they no longer see the connections between an analytical deconstruction of a concept [Christianity] and how the concept is being used to attack gaming, freedom, and peace in this country.

If anything, intolerent and absurd critics who never really defeat or address my core points, are spewing hate against me.

I do not wish to prevent Christians from preaching hate and worshipping a genocidal child killer [please, if you do not believe this claim about the nature of God, read your Bibles]. That is their given right as an American, but I will not tolerate when their superstitious hate motivates an act of censorship, industry regulation, or any of the topics dicussed in this thread.

Stop hoisting religion on a special altar that makes it immune to critcism.

Damn, bingo again.

I kind of went a little off-topic here myself, so I don't want to come off like a hypocrite, but... Pandralisk, you clearly either choose not to or are incapable of discussing religious issues civily, and your posts almost always go into the realm of off-topic vitriolic rants. Your first post in this thread wasn't as bad as normal, and this thread was already more related to normal politics than is usual for an article here, so I kept quiet, but now that you are back to your old self, I will just politely remind you that you were warned about this by Dennis in another article.

My apologies to all here for my own somewhat off-topic comments made to the1jeffy, though I think mine were at least not on the level of bashing rants.

@ Pendralisk

"I do not wish to prevent Christians from preaching hate and worshipping a genocidal child killer [please, if you do not believe this claim about the nature of God, read your Bibles]. That is their given right as an American, but I will not tolerate when their superstitious hate motivates an act of censorship, industry regulation, or any of the topics dicussed in this thread."

Please don't generalize all of us as hateful idiots. There are those of us who realize that the Bible was made by man and as such is riddled with inaccuracies. I for one view it as more of a collection of fables and a general guide on how to be a good person - particularly the New Testament, sans genocidal wrath-of-God moments.

Your generalizations are just as hateful in the manner with which you convey them as the acts of bigotry you claim to be opposed to. I wish more atheists and agnostics would realize this when going on their anti-religion tirades.

Also, staying on topic if FTW.

Wow, I don't think there's anyone I particularly want to vote for. The GOP is full of hypocritical asshole's, and the Democratic Party's not much better. And Mitt...I hope to God he does NOT get nominated/become President. Or any other conservative for that matter. We need a new mind set in the White House...

"I want to bash your moral character, so stop bashing mine!" ~Pandralisk

now, i would generally agree with you on issues of religious importance, but i think i speak for everybody on this site when i say "we know your stance on religion, but this topic is about something else, even if it has its roots in religion, so just shut up"
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Big PermBlazers w/ t-shirts trigger me. This madness must be stopped08/04/2015 - 10:36am
PHX Corp Jim Sterling's commentary of the Xbox Gamescom event08/04/2015 - 9:34am
Big PermI'm talking about not being able to fully disable telemetry unless you have Enterprise software. It's just creepy to me08/04/2015 - 9:31am
TechnogeekBig Perm: If you're talking about the image I think you are, then no, not really. The claims it makes are, at best, extremely misleading in many instances.08/04/2015 - 9:28am
E. Zachary KnightBig Perm, That would make logical sense, so of course YouTube would not allow you to set your subscription page as the home page.08/04/2015 - 9:14am
Big PermBy the way. Anyone else kind of spooked by Microsofts data collection that's being reported about Win10? Thinking of finally trying a linux box for general use and Windows for gaming only08/04/2015 - 8:59am
Big PermCan you set youtube to load subs instead of recommendations first?08/04/2015 - 8:54am
MonteI've had mostly good experience with Youtube recommendations... only problem is when i watch a certain video that messes it up and gets me reconmendations i don't want. Though all i have to do is remove said video from my history to fix it08/04/2015 - 8:42am
Big PermYoutube wants me to watch Nicki Minaj videos. I am ok with this. Dat mute tho08/04/2015 - 7:48am
IvresseIronpatriot: I think it's fair to say that even anti-gamergaters want you to just shut the hell up...08/04/2015 - 7:27am
Sora-Chan@Andrew Eisen: A tip for when it comes to clicking people's video recommendations, use Incognito/Private Mode.that'll keep those kinds of recommendations off the radar. =P08/04/2015 - 5:37am
InfophileWow, I just got an e-mailed ad from Nintendo: "FREE AC Adapter with New Nintendo 3DS XL" - So... pretending this didn't used to be normal, are we?08/04/2015 - 3:34am
MattsworknameNight man, take care08/04/2015 - 2:59am
Andrew EisenOff to bed. Play nice.08/04/2015 - 2:53am
Andrew EisenNo worries. Yeah, it's the pits. It's like "How many times do I have to tell you I'm not interested in this producer's work before you stop recommending his videos to me?!"08/04/2015 - 2:53am
MattsworknameAndrew: Sorry man, youtubes recomendations system is really crappy08/04/2015 - 2:49am
MattsworknameIp: they cite 4 chan. Enough said08/04/2015 - 2:47am
IronPatriotWhat I don't get is why anyone wants to be part of the private online army for a stalker.08/04/2015 - 2:32am
IronPatriotYes, it's pretty sad that even after GG has been exposed as a fraud designed to harass Sarkeesian, they still want to attack her. Do facts even matter anymore?08/04/2015 - 2:30am
Andrew EisenDammit. For context's sake, I watched that one Chris Ray Gun video Matt linked to and now my recommends are chockful of anti-Sarkeesian crap from the usual suspects. ARGH!08/04/2015 - 2:27am

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician